GakuseiDon

Fair enough. So the early church is mythical, also.

What about later Second Century writers? There isn't a lot of history there either, except when we get to heresiologists. Most of the Second Century apologists appear to neglect the history of pretty much anything also. Was the later Second Century church mythical as well?

I'm not offering an explanation; I'm saying that the pattern is there.

Read some of Philo when he isn't talking about history, and you will see the similarities to Paul and other early Christian writings which were "occasional". They aren't that much different in style. His writings can be found here:
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html

As for an explanation to this: I'm mindful of something Doherty wrote:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CarrierComment.htm

... I’m reminded of Carrier’s observation in his Appendix that interpolators could be restricted in the length of their insertions by the overall size of a standard scroll, which could not be exceeded without creating problems. I’ve always claimed that mundane considerations would probably explain a lot more than we realize, even in the content of certain texts upon which we so often hinge grand arguments and interpretations and supposed eternal truths.

I wonder if that is the reason we see few historical details -- and again, I stress on about almost anything, not just on Jesus -- in those writers.

aa5874

You seemed to be only interested in half of the information about Jesus.

You are demonstrating quite blantantly that you will remove or omit my words from my statement just to distort the truth.

MJ means Jesus exisred or was believed to have existed in a NON-HISTORICAL state i.e JESUS existed as MYTHOLOGY. Like Romulus and Remus, Achilles and Zeus.

Steven Carr

So why does Paul mention vast numbers of people in Romans 16?

'Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. 5 Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia.'

Or 1 Corinthians , where Paul again refers to events in the past (otherwise known as history)

For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

How come Paul is writing about historical events when we have just been told that he never did?

Paul is vocal about events in the past, so historicists have to claim that he is silent to avoid listening to him.

GakuseiDon

I am saying there is very little history about anything. Names, yes, occasionally other tidbits like number of years between visits to Jerusalem, which are used to try to date Paul. These are the exceptions though, which is why they tend to stand out.

It is simply difficult to try to get a sense of history of Christianity from anything in the first few centuries, until we get to the heresiologists and historians in the late Second Century. Even the Gospels fall into this pattern: no sense of how long Jesus' ministry was, for example, except for teasing out clues (like the number of Passovers).

This is a pattern that seems to be ignored on this board, with the focus only on the absence of details about Jesus. Possibly part of the problem is that we are looking at the letters with that post-Enlightment mindset we are often warned against, rather than looking at the broader context.

We can find something similar in pagan writings as well. Plutarch for example wrote about 80 CE, not long after Paul. In a recent review of Plutarch's literature, the reviewer noted the following (my emphasis):

"But again we return to the problem that Plutarch rarely adverts directly to the contemporary world (the allusion to Domitian at Publicola 15, discussed by Stadter, is a rare and striking exception). For two contributors to this volume, his writings are notable not for their engagement with issues of contemporary currency but for their avoidance of them... Schmidt's conclusion is that Plutarch's approach is entirely traditional and reflects nothing of the contemporary world: he is wholly insulated by literary confabulation from contemporary politics. Chris Pelling, meanwhile, argues that the Caesar is carefully written to avoid the many resonances it might have had, so that the text might have a timeless rather than a contemporary feel; overall, he suggests, the Lives strategically aim for an immemorial rather than a time-specific feel."

I'm not saying the parallel is exact, but that clearly we need to understand the mindset of the period. What seems odd to us post-Enlightened readers, may simply be the tradition of that time.

Steven Carr

GDon just cannot see any relevance to mythicism of the earliest Christians being told by the Lord how they can obtain access to a body in a ritual cultic meal.

Yes, and Satanists really did have a Satan telling them how to conjure him up....

Steven Carr

Tidbits about lots of people in Paul...

And no tidbits about Joseph, Mary, Nazareth, Judas, Thomas, Barabbas, Simon of Cyrene, Mary Magdalene, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Bartimaeus, disciples, Jesus preaching, Pilate, Bethlehem, Herod, Capernaum, Bethsaida,

Miracles, Joanna, Salome....

Jesus giving new commandments, demonstrating in the Temple.

Paul gives lots of tidbits, but somehow never mentions even by chance anything about this Jesus, except that the Lord told him how to conjure up his body in a ritual meal.

Toto

Probably.

But Philo did write about history.

This is truly the mark of desparation, scraping the bottom of the barrel of arguments. Paul didn't include any details about Jesus, even when they would seem to be vital to his point, because he ran out of room on the scroll? And therefore the HJ existed?

Have a nice day.

spamandham

Anything is possible of course, but we're looking for the least contrived solution. Maybe Jesus was real, was really crucified, Paul knew this and built a theology around it, but since Paul is foaming at the mouth insane, he can accept that the cult founder was humiliated and crucified, but he can't accept wisdom sayings of Jesus even when such sayings would directly support the points he makes, and he can't accept that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, or that he was a Roman citizen....or any other detail you would expect, because *those* details somehow undermine his theology.

If historical details mess up his theology, then clearly his theology does not rest on historical details. To propose that the historical details *except crucifixion* mess up his theology is ad hoc.

Why is this convoluted proposition simpler than the proposal that the reason Paul does not record any historical details, is simply because he doesn't know any?

GakuseiDon

No (and thank you for at least asking this as a question this time!) A pattern definitely exists, which mythicists ignore. I personally suspect that the length of the scroll offered constraints on writing that we can't appreciate today (which is no more than what Doherty wrote). But it is irrelevant to my point. Whatever the reason, there is a pattern of lack of interest in historical details beyond just historical details of Jesus that exists, and is ignored.

maryhelena

So are we in agreement then - Paul is just not interested in historical details?


......... as I said earlier - take a trip with Paul by all means - enjoy the theological side-show - but don't expect that the theological highroad will take you to a historical core to the gospel storyline. That journey follows the low road...

Indeed, such a view of Paul does not rule out a historical Jesus - just as it does not, in and of itself, support the premise of a non-historical Jesus. Therefore - back to the gospel storyline and leave Paul to his flights of theological fantasy....